Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Police activity
Reference:

Features of linguistic expertise of texts of dialogues on anti-corruption cases

Karimova Tat'yana Sergeevna

PhD in Pedagogy

Head of the Department, Department of Foreign Languages and Speech Culture, East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

664074, Russia, Irkutsk, Lermontov str., 110, 8(3952) 41-27-12

karimova_tanya@internet.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0692.2024.1.69818

EDN:

DWHIRO

Received:

07-02-2024


Published:

14-02-2024


Abstract: The object of the study is dialogue texts with signs of corrupt speech behavior. The subject of the study are marker words, linguistic methods that reveal linguistic signs of a discourse that has a meaningful and semantic focus on receiving or transferring values for the actions of the recipient (inaction), in favor of the giver. The purpose of this work was to conduct a communicative analysis of corrupt speech behavior in the textdialogue: to accept illegal remuneration for actions (inaction) in the service in order to obtain valuables in the event of an agreement between the specified persons.The main task of the linguistic and forensic examination of anti-corruption cases is to establish the event by its speech representation: it is required to prove that the dialogue is about the transfer of funds. To solve this issue, it is necessary to conduct a communicative analysis of the text-dialogue. The research methodology is related to the communicative analysis of texts-dialogues with signs of corruption content, based on the works of D.L. Karpov, "on the theoretical and practical works of A. N. Baranov, K. I. Brinev, E. N. Galyashina, M. A. Grachev, I. A. Sternin, etc., devoted to cases related to corruption. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the use of a communicative approach within the framework of text-dialogue analysis, logical-semantic and functional-stylistic analysis. The analysis of the expert study of the text-dialogue on anti-corruption cases is presented, the conceptual framework is developed. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the main task of linguistic expertise in anti-corruption cases is to establish an event by its speech representation through the use of a set of semantic and pragmatic techniques of discursive analysis, which allows us to clarify the signs of conversational dialogue that are significant for the legal qualification of speech crimes. When conducting a communicative analysis of a corrupt text, it is important to identify signs of corrupt speech behavior. When analyzing a communicative corruption situation, it is necessary to consider the speech strategies and tactics of the participants in the dialogue, which ultimately allow us to determine the true intentions of the communicants aimed at achieving a communicative goal.


Keywords:

corruption, corrupt communication act, marker words, speech strategies, speech tactics, linguistic expertise, masking the content of the conversation, semantic discourse analysis, expert research methodology, linguistic sciences

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

In the modern world, corruption is singled out as one of the most harmful social phenomena affecting the interests of national security of states, having a destructive effect on various spheres of public life, undermining the authority of public authorities and management, since with corruption, public authorities cease to perform state functions and instead of performing functions to protect citizens turn into a danger carrier for their rights and freedom.

It should be noted that currently the economic and legal aspects of the study of corrupt behavior are quite clearly formulated and fixed by the regulations. According to I.A. Sternin, "the fight against corruption in our country also has a pronounced linguistic aspect," since during the linguistic and forensic examination of "corrupt texts, it is necessary to inventory lexical units, expanded turns of speech that may carry a corrupt meaning" [3]. As D.L. Karpov notes, "in the theoretical and practical works of A. N. Baranov, K. I. Brinev, E. N. Galyashina, M. A. Grachev, I. A. Sternin and others devoted to cases related to corruption, a conceptual apparatus and methodology for analyzing texts with potential corrupt content have been developed" [11].

In the scientific research of N.V. Vyazigina, T. A. Sidorova, S.V. Doronina, T.V. Varlakova, a communicative analysis of texts-dialogues with signs of corrupt content was carried out.

T.V. Varlakova notes that "within the framework of forensic linguistic expertise in cases of bribes, when colloquial texts are analyzed, a communicative approach is most appropriate, which is relevant for modern linguistic science, as well as logical-semantic and functional-stylistic analysis" [3].

For example, according to D.L. Karpov, "N. V. Vyazigin, in a dialogue about a bribe, first of all, considers the speech strategies of a participant acting as a "bribe recipient" [11]. T.A. Sidorova describes in detail a corrupt communicative act, highlighting the main components and aspects of the communicative situation, the main strategies used by communicants, but at the same time, the author refers to the behavior of both the giver and the recipient" [17].

S.V. Doronina believes that a corrupt text should be considered as "a secret script, which is implemented using a number of linguistic means: euphemisms, ellipses, demonstrative pronouns, etc." [8]. Also, S.V. Doronina, analyzing the discursive aspect of the corruption dialogue, studying not only the techniques of concealing the content of the conversation, but also the speech tactics used by the participants, "raises the urgent problem of inducing the explication of the intentions of the bribe taker, which police officers resort to to identify the criminal intentions of the detainee" [8].

When conducting a communicative analysis of a corrupt text, it is important to identify signs of corrupt speech behavior. Signs of corrupt speech behavior in dialogue texts, according to E.I. Galyashina, are "speech acts: demand, coercion, coercion, request, promise, offer, persuasion, etc." [6]. E.I. Galyashina also notes that "a promise or offer to transfer or accept illegal remuneration for actions (inaction) in the service, when qualifying what they have done, they will be considered as intentionally creating conditions for the commission of relevant corruption crimes in the case when the intention expressed by the person to transfer or receive a bribe or an object of commercial bribery was aimed at bringing it to the attention of other persons in order to give them or receive valuables from them, as well as in the case of an agreement between the specified persons" [6].

It should be noted that when analyzing the communicative corruption situation, it is necessary to consider the speech strategies and tactics of the participants in the dialogue, which ultimately allow us to determine the true intentions of the communicants aimed at achieving a communicative goal. According to E.V. Klyuev, "using communicative competence, the speaker sets himself a communicative goal (defining or not defining a communicative perspective, that is, the ability to cause desired consequences in reality) and, following a certain communicative intention (intention), develops a communicative strategy that is transformed into a communicative tactic (either not transformed, or transformed unsuccessfully) as a set of communicative intentions" [13].

Let's analyze the definitions of the concepts "speech tactics", "speech strategy".

O.S. Issers understands speech strategy as a set of speech actions aimed at solving a common communicative task of the speaker, and considers one or more actions that contribute to the implementation of the strategy as speech tactics" [10]. When choosing a speech strategy, as O. S. Issers notes, it is necessary to take into account "the communication situation, the communicative situation, the roles played by the participants, differences in the situation and location, determining which speech acts are appropriate, which semantic content should be expressed, which stylistic design is acceptable" The most important parameters in the description of a speech strategy, as noted O. S. Issers, this is "forecasting and control" [10]. According to O. S. Issers, "predicting speech actions means that a person takes into account information about the relationships between his future speech actions and the situation, that is, the interlocutor chooses a model of speech behavior that will not lead to communicative failure. Control means that in the process of speech interaction, the speaker tries to direct the relevant intellectual and emotional processes of the listener (his interests, assessments, reasoning) in such a way that they eventually lead him to the right decision (state), that is, to achieve the set goals: communicative and real" [10]. As O. S. Issers notes, "each tactic is aimed at certain aspects of the addressee's world model and his psyche (knowledge, assessments, desires). The essence of using a specific tactic is to change the configuration of these parameters in the right direction: to strengthen any desires, change assessments, transform the image of any situation." Through the use of speech tactics, the speaker in one way or another tries to influence the addressee, to make changes in his picture of the world, which will lead the speaker to achieve his goals" [10].

Let's consider the speech strategies used by communicants in a text-dialogue that has signs of corruption.

So, D.L. Karpov identifies the following speech strategies of a bribe taker.

The first strategy, according to D.L. Karpov, is the use of persuasion through the obsessive use of requests, through the repeated repetition of the same thought in various variations (Well, what about this? This is the most..); repeated use of the same lexemes that have a corrupt meaning in this context, for example: "bonus", "let's award you", "we need to give you a bonus", "I will give you gratitude", "my gratitude will have no boundaries indicates that the bribe taker is highly He is interested in solving the case in his favor [11].

The second strategy is the strategy of masking the content of the conversation. Most often, the bribe taker turns to euphemization: he uses words and expressions semantically close to the concept of "bribe" (award, gratitude, resolve the issue, negotiate, etc.). So, in N. Abramov's Dictionary of Synonyms, synonyms of the word "bribe" are the following words: mzda, bakshish, kalym, handout, gifts, promise, salary, salary, salary, earnings, pension, run, amount, winnings, profit, amount, income, profit, profit, dividend, percentage, profit, profit, extraction, swag, fee, revenue, greasing, magarych, hala, nagar, permission, provision, delivery, cottage, pretext, girl, reason, jackpot, swag, lamb in a piece of paper, lev, chick, hapans [1]. It should be noted that these words in a certain speech communication are peculiar signals, indicators, because, as D.L. Karpov notes, "the word has the purpose of delivering information along the communicative chain, most often this information is available and understandable only to the addressee and the addressee," and this must be taken into account in the communicative analysis of a corrupt text [12].

The third strategy is a strategy to convey information in a veiled way. For example, one of the most common expressions used to conceal the meaning is "to solve the issue", as well as "to help", "to negotiate". It should be noted that in the dialogue texts presented to identify corrupt content, the expression "solve the issue" has an unconventional form of use: there is no dependent word explaining which issue should be solved [11].

Thus, in the communicative analysis of the text-dialogue, to identify signs of corrupt behavior of communicants during linguistic expertise are "speech acts: demand, coercion, coercion, request, promise, offer, persuasion, etc." [6]; repeated use of lexemes semantically close to the concept of "bribe" (award, gratitude, to resolve the issue, to agree, etc.); veiled transmission of information through common expressions used to conceal the meaning (for example, to resolve the issue).

During the examination of the disputed text, the expert is faced with the following questions:

1. "Are the audio and video recordings submitted for the study about the transfer of funds from one interlocutor to another? What are the verbal indications of the purpose of these funds?

2. Do the audio recordings submitted for research contain demands for the transfer of someone else's property or the right to it or the commission of other property-related actions under threat of violence, or destruction or damage to someone else's property?

3. Are there any signs of inducement to transfer funds in the audio recordings submitted for research for committing any actions or for inaction? If so, what actions or inaction are we talking about? Who is the subject of the urge?

4. Are there any signs of masking the meaningful elements of the conversation in the audio recordings submitted for the study? Is it possible to determine the meaning of masked text elements or their characteristics?

5. Is there a speech act of consent to receive funds in the audio recordings submitted for research?".

It is known from the circumstances of the case that in order to identify objects related to the subject of expert research, the expert conducted listening to phonograms of conversations recorded on the presented optical discs.

As a result of listening, an oral text related to the subject of expert research was determined, contained within the boundaries of the disputed phonogram (hereinafter the text on the disputed phonogram of ST on SF).

M2- Hello.

M1- What's your name again?

M2- XXXXXXXXXXXX.

M1- A, XXXXXX.

M1- XXXXXXXXXX, so what were we talking about? I've been working hard.... Today is the whole day, I'm telling you seriously, the fuss, the chess tournament was.

M2- M-m.

M1- I'm even, sorry, barely have time for the potty.... Are you talking about yesterday's question, right?

M2- Well yes

M1-A-aah, that's it, I get it. Why did you go to your son?

M2- Well, yes.

M1- Have you talked to him?

M2- Well, yes, of course I talked.

M1- So what's he saying?

M2- Well, what does he say: yes, I do not know.

M1- What do you mean? Who doesn't know?

M2- Well, I didn't shoot him, he says, che... He had some kind of cartridge

M1- Yeah.

M2- That's it.

M1- Did you ask him what and how?

M2- Well, of course. And what-, what can be clarified with him, if he is here, to the last (stretched out). I say, why are you doing this? I'm saying you're not a good deal at all. Would you at least say something, somehow, something-

M1- Yeah.

M2- And now run to me, decide....

M1- Did you tell him that you-

M2- Yeah.

M1- And he?

M2- He's what, he's bent his head, he's silent

M1- Yeah. I understood. Well, I haven't watched it yet today. There was a tournament, there was no time, right now, I'll sit here a little bit, I'll go have dinner, and then we'll start.

M2- So what, should I still drive up then?

M1- No, it makes sense to drive up? The fact is that-

M2- Yes.

M1- Today I will make it, tomorrow morning it will be taken away from me. I need to give it to her already, do you understand?

M2-mmm, yeah.

M1- My deadlines are also suitable, so-

M2- That's it, got it, got it-

M1- Therefore, there is no way.

M2- Clear.

[pause]

M1- So, I haven't watched it yet, I'll watch it tonight.

M2- Well, I get it.

M1- Well, I'll do it tomorrow morning.

M2- Yeah, I'll kind of know by now, right, that's it?

M1- Well-

M2- Well, everything is clear.. Do you have children?

M1- Well, of course.

M2- You understand me.

M1- What are you doing? What is it?

M2- Well, not God knows what, well, I have left from Israel, there-

M1- From Israel?

M2- Well, yes, I was in Israel.

M1- So what's up there?

M2- So, I left it for a rainy day.

M1- Are you offering me money, or what?

M2- Well, magarych, why-

M1- Magarych?

M2- What are you doing?

M1- Yes.

M2- What are you doing?.....

M1- All right, that's it.-

M2- Do you have children, I'm sorry Get it right..

M1- Well, okay, well, nothing... okay, I get it......that's it, come on.

M2- That's it, fuck me.

The analysis of the linguistic characteristics of the ST (the disputed text) showed the following.

The oral text contained in the file "xxxx", recorded using the means of the Russian language, is a quasi-spontaneous, non-mediated dialogue between two persons with a male voice type, differing in timbral characteristics and role functions; it has a situationally determined beginning and ending. - phrases uttered in the file "xxxx" are indicated in the established text of the literal content as M1;

- phrases pronounced in the file "xxxx" gr.YYYY are indicated in the established text of the literal content as M2. CT is characterized by the presence of semantic connections of text fragments and the compatibility of elements, semantic, logical, formal and grammatical connectedness of linguistic units. The development of the topic takes place sequentially, microtemes are distributed in accordance with the communicative task implemented by the interlocutors in the process of interaction throughout the conversation. The remarks of the interlocutors are mutually conditional in meaning, at prosodic and intonation levels correspond to the general meaning of the conversation.

Taking into account the specifics of the actualization of lexical, syntactic-semantic, formal-logical, as well as prosodic levels of oral-speech discourse, appropriate methods of analysis were chosen: auditory perceptual, component, conceptual, logical-grammatical, semantic-syntactic, lexical-semantic, text authorization, structural organization of dialogue, communicative organization of text, analysis presuppositions, propositional analysis, functional and pragmatic analysis.

The following terms and definitions were used in the research process:

Addressee the person to whom the speech (text) belongs, the sender of the speech message.

The addressee is a real or imaginary person to whom the speech (text) is addressed, the recipient of the speech message.

An utterance is a unit of communication that has semantic integrity and can be perceived by the listener (addressee) in these communication conditions.

Denote - (from Latin denotare to mark, to designate). The object or phenomenon of the reality around us, with which this linguistic unit correlates.

An activity situation is a situation in which speech interaction (conversation) takes place. An activity situation, as a rule, involves the establishment of an agreement on the resolution of a reference situation.

A dialogue is a text created by two communication partners, one of whom is the initiator of communication (addressee) and sets the program for the development of the text, its intention, and the other the communication partner (addressee) should actively participate in the development of this program and should not go beyond it.

An illocution is an integral part of a speech act, a pragmatic component of the meaning of an utterance, reflecting the speaker's communicative attitude.

Imperative verbal forms and constructions with the meaning of the direct expression of the speaker / writer's will addressed to the listener / reader regarding the performance of the called action, regardless of who will be the performer of this action the addressee, the addressee or a person not participating in the speech act, or any combination of the listed persons.

Causation in a broad sense a meaning that can be conveyed both at the nominative and at the communicative level includes the parameter of the cause, the impetus to change the situation (by the speaker, listener, a third person, an object, another situation at the communicative level) and, related to the first, the impact parameter.

Keywords are the supporting words expressing the main idea of the text.

A communicative situation is a specific communication situation that includes communication partners, conditions and ways to implement a communicative task.

Connotation is the emotional, evaluative, or stylistic coloring of a linguistic unit of a conventional (fixed in the language system) or occasional nature. In a broad sense, any component that complements the denotative as well as grammatical content of a language unit and gives it an expressive function.

Context is those words that surround and accompany a given word and give it the necessary unambiguity.

An authorization token is something that indicates the source of what is being reported.

Masking is the change of any elements of a text in the process of its generation through various techniques (omission, replacement, distortion), which does not always have a criminological basis.

Nomination is the formation of linguistic units characterized by a nominative function, i.e., serving to name and isolate fragments of reality and form appropriate concepts about them in the form of words, combinations of words, phraseological units and sentences.

Paralinguistic means are nonverbal means of speech communication: phonation (timbre, tempo, volume of speech, etc.); kinetic (posture, facial expressions, gestures); graphic (handwriting, symbols). They relate to the situation as a whole, acting as a semantic support.

Presupposition (here) is a component of the general knowledge of the speaker and listener.

A proposition is a set of nominations, individual situations, abstracted from the modal content.

A reference situation is a situation that is significant for the communicant(s), which is discussed in the ongoing conversation and which takes place in the past or is planned in the future.

A speech act is an elementary speech action. A separate remark in the dialogue, endowed with a certain illocutionary force and causing a certain perlocutionary effect.

Speech communicative intention is a communicative intention to build a statement in a certain style and form.

Sema is the minimum component of the meaning of a word.

Semantics is all the content, information transmitted by a language or some unit of it.

A threat is a warning (I want you to know) about the speaker's desire to perform an undesirable (non-active) action for the listener (or a third person) if he has committed, commits, commits or resumes an action undesirable for the speaker or a third person, or has not committed, does not commit, does not want to commit or resume what is desirable for the speaker (less often a third person) an action that is usually realized in the active emotional state of the speaker.

Goal setting is a linguistic way of presenting and organizing information by the addressee (speaker), aiming at one or another type of influence on the addressee, and as a typical representative of him the listener (question, demand, request, advice, suggestion, threat, warning, objection, confirmation, etc.).

Explicit expressed using language tools specifically designed for this expression. It is opposed to the implicit expressed indirectly, in a hidden form [2].

1. Resolving issues 1, 3, 5: " Are the audio recordings submitted for the study about the transfer of funds from one interlocutor to another? What are the verbal indications of the purpose of these funds?"; "Are there any signs in the audio and video recordings submitted for research of an incentive to transfer funds for committing any actions or for inaction? If so, what actions or inaction are we talking about? Who is the subject of the motivation?"; "Is there a speech act of consent to receive funds in the audio and video recordings submitted for research?" was conducted jointly.

The activity, communicative and reference situations were analyzed, as well as the verbatim content of the conversation, as a result of which it was determined that this communicative situation (meeting and conversation) was preceded by a reference situation that takes place in the past.

Factors of the communicative situation:

- location the meeting and conversation take place in the office of gr. XXXX;

- number of participants dialogue, two persons with a male voice type participate in the conversation gr. XXXX and gr. gr.YYYY;

- information/communication channel non-mediated, visual;

- the form of presentation of speech material oral speech;

- hierarchy/statuses of communicants the statuses of communicants in CT are unequal and correspond to their roles in the ongoing communicative situation:

a) the person designated as M1, gr. XXXX is an employee of law enforcement agencies, an expert, that is, an official in whose production there is an examination based on the materials of verification of events that took place in the past, in which the son of gr. YYYY took part;

b) a person designated as M2, gr. YYYY the "father" of a person who participated in events that took place in the past, which are currently being checked by law enforcement officers;

- publicity/privacy CT is formally private, since gr. YYYY is not aware of the fixation of gr. XXXX of the communicative situation on the recording device, it should be noted that this fact influenced the speech behavior of both communicants;

- the goals of the communication participants the goals and intentions of the communicants correspond to the beneficial results of communication anticipated by each of them, as well as due to the non-free nature of the communicative situation:

a) the communicative goal setting of the person designated in ART as M1, gr. XXXX is structurally divided into open and hidden: open consists in establishing contact with gr. YYYY, in clarifying the details of the reference situation that took place in the past, and the role of gr. YYYY's son in it, hidden goal setting consists in fixing the communicative situation, namely, the behavior and actions of gr. YYYY in order to identify illegal acts;

b) the communicative intention of the person designated in the ART as M2, gr. YYYY, is to achieve a beneficial result for him and his son, namely, to solve a problematic situation related to the results of the examination conducted by gr. YYYY

The conversation presented for research is one of a set of thematically correlated texts, the content of which is revealed not by one separate text, but in the complex interaction of many texts several communicative events/conversations [20]. Due to the absence of the entire set of conversations related to the presented reference situation, it should be It should be noted that some information in the speech of communicants related to the problem situation, ways to solve it, as well as details of the reference situation, are a presuppositional component of the knowledge of the speakers, not deducible from the context (this communicative situation a meeting and conversation is a continuation of a previously held communicative event).

Thus, based on the analysis of activity, communicative and reference situations, as well as taking into account the propositional content of the text, it can be concluded that:

- the topic of the CT is clarifying the details of the problem of the situation that took place in the past, discussing deadlines, details and results of the expert's examination;

- the subject of the conversation on CT is an expert opinion, deadlines, results, ways to solve a problematic situation.

To answer the questions posed, the expert conducted a search for speech (lexical, grammatical and syntactic) representatives, explicated and implicated in ART, included in the semantic field of the concept of "money": "So what's there?", "Are you offering me money or what?", "Well, magarych, why-", "Magarych?".

Magarych is from the Arab. [expenses, expenses] razg.-snizh. A treat (usually including a drink) in connection with the conclusion of a profitable deal, receiving a bonus, an award, a new position, etc. (arranged by the party that received the benefit) [14].

Magarych razg.-snizh. A treat - usually with a drink - on the occasion of a good deal or as a reward for something [9].

Reward is the result of such an action; payment for labor, gratitude, reward [9].

Payment is the payment of money for labor, service, any services, etc. [9].

Based on the analysis of keywords, the structural organization of dialogues and the propositional content of CT, it was found that in the presented conversation held between gr. XXXX and gr. YYYY, there are a number of directive dialogical units, which deal with the transfer of gr. YYYY gr. XXXX of funds positioned gr. YYYY as "remuneration for a service" provided to him by gr. XXXX. It should be noted that the presented ARTICLE largely implies information about the amount of "remuneration", the nature of the "service", the presence or absence of a previously held/discussed agreement between the communicants.

It was also found that the replicas of the persons participating in the conversation lack stable communicative constructions of motivation, verbs with the lexical meaning of motivation, and communicative parameters of motivation.

It should be noted that as a result of the analysis of the communicants' speech behavior, the following features were identified:

1. The speech behavior of gr. XXXX is conditioned by the status of a communicant. In the speech of gr. XXXX, replicas-stimuli prevail, he sets the direction of the conversation, concretizes the subject, it should be noted a significant number of similar, clarifying interrogative constructions thematically related either to personal information about gr. YYYY, or to information about gr. YYYY's son, replicas-reactions to gr. YYYY's questions are either absent, they are replaced by non-phonological sounds, stretched asemantic / desemanticized words, or represent a counter-question.

During the conversation, Mr. YYYY shows verbal passivity, avoiding discussing the presence/absence of the possibility of solving the problematic situation of Mr. XXXX, methods, deadlines, conditions for performing the "service", etc. At the time of the transfer of funds, Mr. YYYY continues to ask clarifying questions, verbally not stopping his actions "Well, okay, well, nothing... Okay, I get it.".

2. The verbal behavior of Mr. YYYY is conditioned by the realization of his goal the achievement of a beneficial result for him and his son, namely, the solution of a problematic situation related to the results of the examination conducted by Mr. XXXX. In the speech of Mr. YYYY, at the beginning of the conversation, retaliatory remarks prevail, at the time of transfer of funds, the use of the same type of syntactic constructions and the use of means of verbal influence is noted, namely speech means appealing to the norms of human behavior "Do you have children ...", "Do you have children? You understand me", "Understand me correctly..." [15].

2. Solution of question No. 2: "Do the audio and video recordings submitted for research contain requirements for the transfer of someone else's property or the right to it or the commission of other actions of a property nature under threat of violence, or destruction or damage to someone else's property?".

In the conversation held between gr. XXXX and gr. YYYY, recorded on the presented optical discs, there were no incentive structures in the form of a demand/threat to transfer someone else's property, the right to it or other actions of a property nature, and there were no incentive structures containing the semes of violence/aggression.

3. Solution to question No. 4: "Are there signs of masking the meaningful elements of the conversation in the audio and video recordings submitted for research? Is it possible to determine the meaning of masked text elements or their characteristics?".

In the conversation held between gr. XXXX and gr.YYYY, recorded on the presented optical discs, there were no signs of masking the meaningful elements of the conversation.

Thus, the main task of linguistic expertise in anti-corruption cases is to establish an event by its speech representation through the use of a set of semantic and pragmatic techniques of discursive analysis, which allows us to clarify the signs of conversational dialogue that are significant for the legal qualification of speech crimes.

References
1. Abramov, N. (1999). Dictionary of Russian synonyms and similar expressions: About 5000 synonymous rows. More than 20000 synonyms-7th ed., stereotype. Moscow: Russian dictionaries.
2. Akhmanova, O.S. (2009). Dictionary of linguistic terms.
3. Varlakova, T.V. (2013). Speech provocation as an object of forensic linguistic examination [Text]. Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 4, 33-36.
4. Vyazigina, N.V. (2012). Linguistic examination in cases related to corruption: the problem of provoking a bribe [Text]. Communication in the modern world: materials of the III International Scientific Conference, 190-193. Barnaul.
5. Vyazigina, N.V. (07.02.2024). Methodological foundations for identifying provocation in linguistic expertise in corruption cases [Electronic resource]. Retrieved from http://lingvaexpert.ru/expert_says/ publications/vyazigina-n-vmetodologicheskie-osnovy-vyyavleniya-provokatsiiv lingvisticheskoy-ekspertize-po-dela/
6. Galyashina, E.I. (2016). Forensic linguistic examination of corruption discourse: subject, tasks and competencies. Bulletin of the University named after O.E. Kutafina (MSAL), 2, 6-14.
7. Golub, I.B. (2006). Stylistics of the Russian language.
8. Doronina, S.V. (2015). “Commander! Maybe we can agree?”: techniques of discourse analysis in the linguistic examination of texts on anti-corruption cases [Text]. Political linguistics. Ch. ed. A. P. Chudinov; FSBEI HPE “Ural. state ped. univ." Ekaterinburg. Issu3 (53), 245-250.
9. Efremova, T.F. (2011). Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. In 3 volumes.
10. Issers, O.S. (2011). Communication strategies and tactics of Russian speech.
11. Karpov, D. L., & Pozhilova, D. E. (2018). Analysis of the strategy of the bribe-giver in the preparation of expertise in anti-corruption cases. Social and humanitarian knowledge, 1(4), 38-43.
12. Karpov, D. L. (2017). Thematic analysis in an expert study of the text on anti-corruption cases. Social and humanitarian knowledge, 4(3), 380-384.
13. Klyuev, E. V. (1998). Speech communication.
14. Kuznetsov, S.A. (1998). “Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”. St. Petersburg.
15. Culture of Russian speech. (2003). Encyclopedic dictionary-reference book. Ed. L.Yu. Ivanova, A.P. Skovorodnikova, E.N. Shiryaeva.
16. Moskvin, V.P. (2022). Rhetoric and communication theory. Types, styles and tactics of verbal communication.
17. Sidorova, T. A. (2017). Diagnosis of bribery in the expert activities of a linguist. Current issues of education and science, 1(59), 39-50.
18. Modern Russian language. (2011). Theory. Analysis of linguistic units. In 2 parts. Ed. E.I. Dibrova. – 4th ed.
19. Sternin, I. A. (2017). Language markers of corruption text. Psycholinguistics and lexicography. Vol. 4. Voronezh: RITM.
20. Linguistics. (1998). Big Encyclopedic Dictionary. Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. – 2nd ed.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The topic of the reviewed article is quite relevant and at the same time complex. The author turns to the analysis of the features of the linguistic expertise of the texts of dialogues on anti-corruption cases. At the beginning of the work, it was noted that "in the modern world, corruption is singled out as one of the most harmful social phenomena affecting the interests of national security of states, having a destructive effect on various spheres of public life, undermining the authority of public authorities and management, since with corruption, public authorities cease to perform state functions and instead perform functions to protect citizens they turn into a danger carrier for their rights and freedoms." You can really agree with this and take it as a given. I believe that the theoretical basis of the study is objective: the author gives a reference that "in the scientific research of N.V. Vyazigina, T. A. Sidorova, S.V. Doronina, T.V. Varlakova, a communicative analysis of texts-dialogues with signs of corruption content was carried out." The analysis of the available sources was done carefully and objectively: "when conducting a communicative analysis of a corrupt text, it is important to identify signs of corrupt speech behavior. Signs of corrupt speech behavior in dialogue texts, according to E.I. Galyashina, are "speech acts: demand, coercion, coercion, request, promise, offer, persuasion, etc." E.I. Galyashina also notes that "a promise or offer to transfer or accept illegal remuneration for committing actions (inaction) on the service, when qualifying what they have done, will be considered as the deliberate creation of conditions for the commission of relevant corruption crimes ...". A proper number of links are designed in accordance with the requirements of the publication; at the same time, the systematization is given in a constructive sampling mode. The theoretical and practical blocks are commensurate in the article; closing the nominative theory, the author proceeds to consider / analyze a specific situation. The logic of the analysis is accompanied by a group of questions: "During the examination of the disputed text, the following questions are posed to the expert: 1. "Are the audio and video recordings submitted for the study about the transfer of funds from one interlocutor to another? What are the verbal indications of the purpose of these funds? 2. Do the audio recordings submitted for research contain demands for the transfer of someone else's property or the right to it or the commission of other property-related actions under threat of violence, or destruction or damage to someone else's property? 3. Are there any signs of inducement to transfer funds in the audio recordings submitted for research for committing any actions or for inaction? If so, what actions or inaction are we talking about? Who is the subject of the urge? 4. Are there any signs of masking the meaningful elements of the conversation in the audio recordings submitted for the study? Is it possible to determine the meaning of masked text elements or their characteristics? 5. Is there a speech act of consent to receive funds in the audio recordings submitted for research?". The text with which the researcher works is fully given as an example for the reader, the necessary comment is made: "as a result of listening, an oral text related to the subject of expert research was determined, contained within the boundaries of the disputed phonogram (hereinafter the text on the disputed phonogram ST on SF)." Further along the text, a fully analytical layout is presented: "the analysis of the linguistic characteristics of the ST (the disputed text) showed the following. The oral text contained in the file "xxxx" is recorded using the means of the Russian language, is a quasi-spontaneous, non-mediated dialogue between two persons with a male voice type, differing in timbral characteristics and role functions; has a situationally determined beginning and ending. - phrases pronounced in the file "xxxx" are indicated in the established text of the literal content as M1 ...", etc. The work can be an example / sample for the formation of texts of a related thematic orientation. The methods of analysis do not contradict modern developments; the material is independent, variably objective, and interesting. The research topic corresponds to one of the headings and publications. In the final section, the author notes that "the main task of linguistic expertise in anti-corruption cases is to establish an event by its speech representation through the use of a set of semantic and pragmatic techniques of discursive analysis, which makes it possible to clarify the signs of conversational dialogue that are significant for the legal qualification of speech crimes." Thus, I state: the main goal of the work has been achieved, the tasks set at the beginning have been solved. The text does not need serious editing and revision; no actual violations have been identified. I recommend the article "Peculiarities of linguistic expertise of texts of dialogues on anti-corruption cases" for open publication in the journal "Policing".